Why Wasn’t Trump’s Crypto Support Enough? What Happened Behind the Scenes With the Long-Awaited Bill?
The Clarity Act, which the crypto industry in the U.S. had been waiting for, failed to advance in the Senate for reasons that go beyond regulatory disagreements. A new investigation reveals how Trump’s crypto ties, stablecoin yields and the election calendar complicated negotiations.
An investigation published by CoinDesk on September 27, based on interviews with more than a dozen industry representatives and legislative aides, examined the path to this month’s failed procedural vote. According to those interviewed, despite pro-crypto political support, conflict-of-interest debates and protracted negotiations prevented lawmakers from agreeing on a common text.
The Clarity Act aims to clarify the boundaries of authority between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in the roughly $3 trillion crypto industry. As a result, the stalled process concerns the future of lasting rules governing not just a single product, but how the crypto market will be overseen.
Trump’s crypto ventures made compromise harder
Democratic senators sought ethics provisions that would limit the personal crypto ties of the president and other senior public officials. The Trump family’s crypto ventures were at the center of this demand. Some people interviewed said the $1.4 billion in income Trump reported from crypto ventures in his June financial disclosure further intensified the debate.
The parties failed to agree on a shared ethics provision before the vote. Democratic Representative Ritchie Torres acknowledged that there were multiple reasons for the failure, but argued that Trump’s personal crypto activities made bipartisan compromise more difficult. This is one of the political views reported in the investigation; it is not presented as the sole, definitive reason for the vote.
Debate over yields cost time
Provisions on stablecoin yields and rewards played a significant role in Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong’s decision to withdraw his support for the Senate Banking Committee draft in January. According to some industry representatives, months of debate between banks and crypto companies narrowed the time available to resolve other disagreements. However, those interviewed also stressed that an earlier vote would not have guaranteed success.
The Senate’s decision to develop its own bill instead of using the text the House of Representatives passed in July 2025 by 294 votes to 134 was also cited as a factor that prolonged the process. As the November 3 midterm elections approached, concerns about giving the opposing party a political win made compromise even more difficult.
Hope remains that the bill will be discussed again before the end of the year, but no firm schedule has been set. The SEC and CFTC are trying to address existing gaps through guidance, but this cannot replace a permanent market structure law enacted by Congress.